The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-14 00:00:00

k 1 / 4 -f .. :t .„, ' 4 ,., - id_ Ll_2_4 1. SUN OFI'ICE, Seven o' I PER IA P All i4N r, (TIIIS EVENING.) 11 OUSE OF COMMONS. The SPFAIM to the Clink at Fair o'clJek. Mr. A, Tip EVOR presented a petition from the Marquis of Londonderry, praying tube heard by counsel atrainst certain parts tithe S;Juth Durham Railway Bill. The Hon. Mem ber also presented a petition from Durham to the same effect. Lord A. CON YNG HAM presented a petition from Can terbury, against the South-Eastern Railway Bill. Lord C. m ANNE IZS presented a petition from Leicester, aairist the Midland Counties Railway Bill. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWA.Y BILL. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented two petitions from Cog geshall, in favour of this Bill. As the Bill would come on for a second reading presently, he would not make any obser. rations on the presentation of , these petitions. Mr. T. GLADSTONE presented a petition, very nu znerously signed by the owners and occupiers/of land on the Mine of road of this railway against the Bill. Mr. 'WILLIAMS presented four petitions from the owners of land on different parts of the line of road to the same effect. Petitions were presented in favor of this Railway from 1,220 owners and occupiers of property on the line between London and West Ham ; from the Tower Hamlets, with nelno sig natures ; by Lord Stormont, from Norwich, 3,635 signa tures ; by Mr. Prated, from the inhalaitants of Yarmouth ; and from the fishermen of Yarmouth ; by Sir C. Broke Vere, from Woodbridge, Beccies, Bun Jay, and Needham Market by Mr. Morrison, from Ipswich ; by Mr. Sanderson, from Colchester; by Sir J e h n T yrre ll , f rom Ch e l ms f or d ; b y M r. Bramston, from Brentwood ; by Mr. Quintin Dials, from Witham ; and by Mr. Hall Dare, from Romford. Sir C. B. VI(IRE moved the second reading of the Bill. An HON. M EMBER , w h ose name we could not learn, moved that the till be read a second time that day six months. Lord. G. SOMERSET wished to state some grounds which he hoped would induce the House to accede to the mo tion for reading the Bill that day six months. One reason which presented itself to his mind was that he held in his hand a petition from a gentleman of large property, who wenid be very much aggrieved if the measure passed into law. He had the honour a few evenings ago to present 4 17,etition front a friend of his, a gentleman who would be son-lously in convenienced and damaged by the Bill, and tie thought the 'House ought'not to proceeddn a hurry wi':n the second read ing. Ile understood that a large numbn r of landholders would be affected by its provisions, but the gentleman of whom he spoke would have cut off kresenvoir of water which was most useful to him. It was 'impossible to remove the objections of the Committee, becinese if they attempted to deviate from the particular line in nny particular, they would not have complied with the Stand:nig Orders of the House. It was a common argument to say in cases of this kind that the objectionable clauses wondd be struck out in Committee, but so far as his friend WP.3 concerned that was impossible. He had a great right tat complain of a serious injury about to be inflicted upon him % for the line would not run through highways, but through his private demesne. Oh !it might be said that private inte masts should give way to the public convenience. He could mot see that the advantage to the public was so great, or that the proposed line should be so exceedingly useful. He did not deny that Ipswich was an important town : he did not deny that Norwich was an important town. But what he meant to say was, that the commercial intercourse between them was not so great as to warrant them in making a line from London to Norwich by Ipswich. There was bat one coaelt travelling on that road, and he was informed that the great majority of the tra vellers preferred a different route. In the prospectus put forth by the Company, it w."'a stated to be the intention to raise 15,000/, by shares of 2 5:, each, and it was stated as a boast that one-twelfth was subscribed on the whole line of the pro posed road. Now that fact showed the little degree of interest taken by the Rersons, whose benefit it was said would be promoted by th, railway. In the list of the Committee he saw but one respectable gentleman of Norwich, and another of anotb.ne place, upon it, and nine-tenths of the gentlemen were :tot resident in the neighbourhood. This was not a measure, so far as the traffic of Ipswich and Norwich was concerned, that could justify the sacrifice of pro perty which the undertaking would require. There was another objection to the Bill, the merits of which he would not then enter into. There was, he understood, another line of railway in contemplation, and without giving an opinion as to the comparative utility of either line, he thought, at all events, that this fact was a sufficient reason for delaying the second reading of the Bill until the facts should be investigated. ,Under these circumstances he must second the amendment.. Mr. D. W. HARVEY rose and said, that the Noble Lord had asked why the supporters of this Bill, in moving the se cond reading, had said nothing in its defence ? His answer to the Noble Lord was, that if any observations had been made on such occasion it would be a departure from the usual course, and the Noble Lord himself would perhaps be the first person to stand up and complain of the irregularity. With respect to the Gravesend and Dover Bills, a most merciful intimation had been given by the Civiernment, that these works, under no possible circumsta - Aces, could be allowed to go on. This intimation had the. effect of saving the heavy expense which otherwise would, have been fruitlessly incurred. The Noble Lord said that evidence had been given of the utility of the uncle..taMnr , ; but he (Mr. Harvey) would ask, was this the time for the production of such evidence ? If such a coarse had been pursued on the second reading of a Bill, - that House itself would be turned into a Committee room, and. the ordinary routine of business would be completely set aside. From his knowledge of the trade and population of - the towns through which this railroad was to pass, be was perfectly convinced of its utility. The line itself was pec.u liarly adapted for the construction of a railroad, it being a perfect level from Whitechapel Church to Norwich. What ever may be the demerits of the present line, let them be• considered where all such objections should be considered—in Committee. If the claims of Mr. Fel lowes were so very great, he could not object to go before such a tribunal, for there was no very great reluctance on the part of Committees to throw the shield of their pro tection around the parks and pleasure grounds of private in dividuals. It was only the other day that a strong objection was raised to the Hull and Selby line, because it ran within half a mile of the choice country seat of a gentleman. He was not aware that the Noble Lord (Granville Somerset) had opposed any lines that had been brought forward du ring the present session in . such an incipient stage as the second reading.—( Hear.) Let the Bill be referred to a committee, and if Mr. Fellowes could make out a case for their interference, although he (Mr. D. W. Harvey) had not the honour to know him, no one would oppose the measure more strongly. The arguments of the Noble Lord were all directed to details of the measure, which were all to be consi dered in Committee, and there riddled and sifted. The Bill avas one of the greatest importance to the agricultural coun ties of Norfolk and Suffolk, and it would be impossible for them to compete with the Northern Counties, which were at present so fruitful in railways, if they were not afforded the same facilities. The present measure, therefore, was not the offsoring- of choice, but the result of necessity ; and he trusted, the;efore, the House would not allow the Bill to be strangled in its present stage. Mr. WOODHOUSE believed that the injury which would be inflicted upon Mr. Fellowes was of such a nature as not to admit of compensation. With respect to the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Member opposite, all he would' say was, that he, for one, entertained doubts whether any perma nent benefit could he derived from it. Mr. G. F. YOUNG was not going to say anything with reference to the present measure, with the merits of which he was not acquainted. But a question had been raised, and it had been alleged that opposition to Bills of the present descrip tion was unusual. He did not think that such was the case; but even if it were; there were some cases in which 'the House would be justified for departing from such a prin . ciple. There could he no objection to parties expending their capital in whatever speculations they pleased ; but they should not be invested with the enormous power of taking from other parties their houses and domains, whether they pleased or not, unless there was a strongly proved case of public utility. The House would most certainly not do its duty, unless they insisted upon having at least a prima facie case of a great public good, before they granted such extensive powers as were asked for by this Bill. Unless such evidence was be fore them, lie thought they were not justified in giving power to any Company to invade the private dwellings of any one. Mr. BERRIES said if the House adopted the amendment which had been moved, it would place the parties in a diffe rent situation front that in which any other party had been put during the present Session of Parliament.—( Hear.) It -was true it was moved, without any reasons given in its favour: but it was to be remembered that that had been the usual course during the whole of the Session.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared that all the subscriptions had been paid up—that was a proof that the parties interest-ad were satisfied with the pro ject, and he thought that the House acting now as it had hi therto done, would not do its duty unless they sent the the Bill before a Committee. It never had been usual to reject a Bill of this kind ant the second reading. Surely it was not to be thrown, because it was stated that the property of some ' gentleman was much affect e d - by doing s o upon the present occasion , the House would not be doing the same justice to this . Bill as they had done to others. The most respectable of his constituents were in favour of the measure, and therefore lie objected to the opposition to the Dill—because it was unusual, uncalled for, and was not war ranted by the practice of the House. Lord 'FiTORMONT, in presenting a petition from Nor wich, signed by 3,600, said that this shewed that a large number - of persons in that city were favourably disposed tosvareis the Bill. There were two lines of railroad at present in contemplation in Norwich. Now, it was certain that. two lines could never answer, and the House was to de c'•-.le which line should go un. For his omit part, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, reserving to himself th e Opportunity of considering which was the most advantageous line of railroad. Sir J. TYRRELL said that as he was a Member for the county, he must be allowed to make a few observations. If lie should ultimately feel inclined to oppose the measure, his opposition Would eutirel rest upon private grounds. Ile had presented several petitions ns dto say, that the in fa your of this railway ; and lie o seas, noun o pulic meetings whi c h we re most riu mnrouqly and rc,spee tw tatdy attendedAtibthe line th roug h Col chester was the. most popul ar. e same time he must be .• permitted to say that abort a fortnight a go there had an op position sprung up along th e li ne of road'. He would a t p sent stand entirely aloof, but a t t h e same time representingr e ; I the county, lie did not feel bound to offer any opp c f t i oll to the • 0 1 ~► THE SUN, I,()Nri()N, APRI LI 14, i 8513. seoeiVesiiing o r 5t . 1 4 4 lto thg way of Whatvas c Intl 'pale \,:t . ‘ HO USE 617 LORDS. the usual hour. - impre mow: , 4, S k ' _..r-A*' - ~, ~, -,.. '‘'t. The Lorin lANCELLOR too': his :eat on the Woolsack, at Sir Pi, lla:RRISO: rose to - offier his epresttetfit - fetans measure; and he could assure the I-leArAt' . ..:,at he did so, act on . • . The Arbroath al ! d Ferfar Railway 8111, aol1.„ 1 . 01 1 on the private, but on putzlie ArreeNAclt. This railroad %TM by no means t ,i ) ;„ , •. ;-.00 , e-;. -- .-..' ; 4 4 " ' , 6 Were forwarded a itaErdi .im Honourable Member 7.ecessary frrr , ;vatic' purposes, as at that very memenZ, as tee& teen well observed by an o't . i ''' t' ti 11. 1 '' L . . n the tlt9tVgif f t,hp kisirgliff of ~ A..., S._.i .., toe ter 'due% P11thiC......;'6.0 . g.1. 4Oace'stershire Railway Bill vas read a second Wlie had preceded him, there was 010 ore —or two at the very most—which traVOI . A -.6 . g.‘il ai .ly will time. ' . . . that road. Under theeeeitettitittimVe'S, tlierefore, and upon The Duke Of . CUA ) 1114114,41/ Pre§',VaF &TV ,910 from public grounds o.nly, kke skished to oppose this measure. If, the e . '.9l', ; S(i . e;riesi ; and. ;. orni - i - ,ri.ii litatitibil Of 0.6 City of howevr., tile se'Cond reading should be carried, his oppositioi"l Dublin riktiii ., A th.; !rish Municipal Corporation Bill. wenlattase immediately. !"._./.r A-t. L. Hay and ethers from the Commons, brought up - Mr. O'C.ONNELL protested against thit slkeeles of discus sion._( L ou d cr i es of r , float, liean. y ') if th e N o bl e Lord the Dundee and :Forfar Railway Bill, and some other Bills. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. •( fiord G. - Somerset) had proposed to refer this The Bishop of LONDON presented, petitions from Ber- Committee of the whole House, c-;, r '4 es - ill to a rise and not suffer him to Ir 2; ilaaecl, - keeav e i• much he thilit , ; mendet , e and ether' places, in favour of the due observance y 11l an in it *ftta i. .; --'' e; tne Lord's Day; and one from Derby to the same effect, deserve it. Yet what Were thZ'' now doing 'They might and praying for the introduction of a clause (to prevent Sun discuss the d:lails otth'e kit as). cheers.)in a Committee day travelling) in all Railway Bills. of the whole BVUse.—( Hear, heart' tehIaYABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. To ey this . he The Right Rev.. PRELATE then presented a petition from most ateetigly objected. He 'Concurred with those Gentlemen wilt; tald that private property ought to be sacred. (Pear, hear.) No 'rm.:: in that House would ge Ilti'lher thann — he would to protect private property from itiVaion, except in cases of Bury St. Edmunds, praying for the abolition of capital punish ment in Gist cases except wilful murder. The op of CHESTER presented a petition from Ches. ter to the same effect. unamitlable necessity. But it was in Committee that the ARBROATH AND FORFAR RAILWAY. pethion of Mr. Ikilowes ought to be inquited into, and The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition from when the question came again before that House, he (Mr. the trustees of a turnpike-road, against the Arbroath and For- O'Connell) must have the eleeftSt case made out before far Railway Bill; and two petitions from individuals to the he would consent to. ievadV Vlthate rights. But be did object same effect. to discussing them until after, the ordinary method of the Committee had failed.—(Loud cries at " Hear.") That gentleman was no deubt a vtry respectable man, and he had very respectable advetates in that House ; but the same rule ought to apply to this Bill as to every other.—(Loud cheers.) This was a question of practical details, and ought to be left,for a Committee.—( Hear. ) Mr. T. GLADSTONE wished to say one word relative to the manner in which the petition from Norwich in favour of this Bill had been got up. It was get up by the foulest means—by means of eating and drinking.—(Great laughter.) Every person who went in and put his name to the petition, got a good lunch.—(Renewed laughter for some time.) So much for the petition. He wished to say a few words relative to vihat had been stated as to that part of the line which crossed the river Lee. It was not in the power of the cw.nmittee to alter that line, if they passed this Bill in the pre sent seetion. He had already referred to the means by which petitions in favour of the Bill had been got up, aad the means by which it had been introduced into that House were equally objectionable. It had been stated that part of the line passed through the park of Mr. Fellowes. Not only was not this gen tleman's consent asked, but he had not even notice of this rail road previous to the second reading. The parties who intro duced this railway had resorted to the most disingenuous con duct. Previous to the first reading of the Bill Mr. Fellowes had received no intimation whatever of what they were about to do, and he thus had no means of opposing it. But he (Mr. Gladstone) opposed this Bill on public grounds. The persons who had entered into this undertaking were distant speculators—Norwich itself had hardly one share-holder ; at least he had only heard of one gentleman who had shares in this railroad, who was not totally disconnected with the county. The traffic on the line of road would not support anything like a railroad—( Hear)—and they had already every advantage that could be afforded by a good sea navi gation. For these reasons he would most decidedly oppose this measure.—(Loud cries of " Divide.") PRISONERS' COUNSEL. The Earl of BEAU CHANIP presented a petition, agreed to by a very full bench of magistrates, against the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. IRISH CORPORATION BILL. The Duke of LEINSTER presented a most numerously signed petition from the citizens of Dublin, in favour of the Irish Corporation Bill. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Com missioners of Paving and Lighting of Bristol, complaining that by the Municipal Corporation Bill their powers had been taken from them, and praying that they might be pro tected by some clause in the Amendment Bill. Also one from the owners and occupiers of land in the parishes of Wigan and Kearsley,. praying to be put in the same condition as other rural districts with regard to the Municipal Reform Bill.—( Hear.) Also one from the Attornies and Solicitors of Nottingham against the probate clauses of the Ecclesias tical Courts' Reform Bill. WAR IN SPAIN. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, in rising to present a petition, said he would take the opportunity of asking a question of the Noble Viscount at the head of the Government. Since the question had been before the House upon a former occa sion, the war in Spain had assumed a very different as pect—he wished to know whether the letter purporting to have been written from Santandar, on the 4th of March, by Lord John Hay to General Cordova was true, in fact, aad if so, whether it had been written by the instructions of the Government? Also whether; such being the case, there would be any objections to the production of the instructions , Lord MELBOURNE had no doubt but the report was correct. The matter rested with the Admiralty, but he had no doubt there would be no objection to the production of the instructions, if there were any. . _ _ The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice that he would to- morrow move for a copy of such instructions. Lord MINTO—We have no such instructions ; we cannot produce them. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would also ask for a copy of Lord Palmerston's despatch of the 10th March, rela tive to the 27 Carlist. prisoners. He thought that letter did the Noble Lord honour, but he was' afraid that it came too late, for by the commercial advises which had arrived in the city, he was informed that a vessel had sailed from the port in which they had' been confined, and bad touched at Porto Rico without cargo. He wished to ask whether any information had been received upon the subject. Lord MELBOURNE said some despatches had been re ceived, and he believed would shortly be laid upon the table. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL (IRELAND.) The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from the Mayor, Commonalty, Citizens of Londonderry, against the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. The petitioners complaind that Londonderry, with a population of 30,000 had been placed in Schedule C, while Kilkenny, with a population of 6,000 less than Londonderry, had been placed in schedule B of the Bill. The Noble Marquis said he would on this occasion draw the alien tion of the Noble Viscount to the disturbances that had Mr. MORRISON would not detain the House one moment. It was proposed that the line of road should pass beyond the plantation of Mr. Fellowes ; therefore he hoped the second reading would not be objected to. Mr. WILKES rose amidst loud cries of " Question," and " Divide." He had but one word to say. The Hon. Mem ber (Mr. T. Gladstone) said that there was not a shareholder in the county of Norwich.—( Hear, hear, bear.) Now, he could assure the House that five thousand shares had been taken by the owners of property along the line.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") This was undoubtedly the best line of road that could be adopted.—( Hear, bear.) It passed through a rich, well-populated district, in which there were many improving towns, and he was quite sure that the House would feel that not one argument bad been urged to induce them to adopt so harsh a proceeding as to reject the Bill on the second reading.—( Hear, hear.) The House then divided— For the second reading Against it 2O • Majority —79 BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. SANDFORD, the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. LEITH HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT BILL. The LORD ADVOCATE, as we understood, moved for an extension of time for bringing in this Bill. taken place in Dublin, at;,:itl;dC;trtCti;n of the statute of his Wm. 111. ; and he could not help - adding, he was sorry to see such an apathy on the part of the Government to what was going on in Ireland. Lord MELBOURNE denied the Government looked on with indifference to what was passing in Ireland. With re spect to the petition the Noble Marquis had presented, he (Lord M.) was very glad to hear it, and when the Bill came to be discussed, he had no doubt they should find in the Noble Marquis a strenuous defender of the rights of the city of Londonderry, and all the other Corporations in Ireland. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY should certainly do everything in his power to oppose the Bill in all its stages. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY also presented a peti tion from certain officers of the Corporation of Dublin, pray ing for compensation in case that House should pass the Irish Corporation Bill. A NOBLE LORD, whose name we could not hear, presented a petition from the Marquis of Donegal, praying to be heard by Counsel against the same Bill. CONSTABULARY FORCE OF IRELAND. Sir GEORGE CLERK said a petition had been pre sented from the inhabitants of Leith a few evenings ago, complaining of an infraction of the standing orders in respect of this Bill. The majority of the inhabitants were opposed to the measure, and all they asked the Corporation to do was to postpone the Bill for one year, in order that time might be afforded for the 'consideration of the important mat ters which it involved. He trusted that the House would not sanction a departure from the rules which they had laid down, more particularly as the present Bill was opposed to the wishes of the great body of the inhabitants. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Hon. Baronet oppo site, whether he thought the House would be acting wisely in refusing to admit the parties to correct an error, when it was clear that correction would be of great advantange to the community. Sir G. CLARKE said that the error committed• by the parties was not sending up persons to prove the allegations of the petition. He believed the majority of the people of Leith were against the measure, and that great advantage would arise from delay. The LORD ADVOCATE admitted that the parties had negleeted to obey the Sessional Orders, but that neglect arose from a supposition that it was not necessary to produce witnesses, until the Bill came before the Committee the question was whether for that small error the House would visit them so severely as not to allow the Bill to proceed further. He was in hopes that, without expense, the matter would be adjusted in a satisfactory manner. Mr. FERGLJSSON trusted the House would grant the in dulgence required. Strangers were then odered to withdraw. The House then divided— The Earl of II ADDINGTON, in pursuance of the notice which he gave on Monday, moved for certain returns relating to the expense and strength of the existing police force of Ire land, and a similar return of the expense that Would be incurred under the Bill before the House.—Ordered. RAILROADS. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that he would move to-morrow that this House do agree to the reso lutions communicated by the House of Commons' respecting railroads. KINGSTON AND SELBY RAILWAY. Admiral ADAM and other Members of the House of Corn mous brought in this Bill, which was read a first time. . MUNICIPAL ACTS' AMENDMENT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this Bill. Lord LYNDHURST said, from the nature of the present bill he thought its details conld be much better considered in a committee up stairs. He therefore begged to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. Lord MELBOURNE bowed assent. The following Peers were then named as the Com mittee :—the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftes bury, Lord Ellenborough, Baron Langdale, Lord Abin ger, Lord Lyndhurst, the Earl Ripon, Lord Devon, Lord Wynford, the Lord President, Viscount Melbourne, Lord \Marneliffe, Lord Somerville, Earl Resslyn, Earl Radnor, Earl Burlington, and Lord Holland. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next. . MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Ayes Noes ... 42 -35 Majority SHEFFIELD AND' ROTHERHAM RAILWAY. On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND, the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from Thomas Boyse, Esq., against the York and North Midland Railway Bill.--Referred to the Committee. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY Mr. CL AY presented a petition against the Great Northern .Railway, and gave notice that on Monday he should move that the Committee on that Bill be revived, or that it be referred again to the Standing Orders Committee. Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition against the South Durham Railway Bill. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Charreville, against certain clauses in the Ulster Canal Bill. Mr. BERNAL and others from the Commons brought up a copy of the Report from the Committee for ascertaining the best mode of obtaining information respecting railways. The House then adjourned. Earl Grey took his scat this evening for the first time this Session, and was cordially welcomed by Noble Lords on both sides of the House. His Lordship first had a tete-a•tete with the Bench of Bishops, after which he gradually went down past the Treasury Bench, and sat where Lord Brougham usually sits. There Lord Lyndhurst joined him, and sat for some time in pleasant conversation with the Noble Earl. Soon after several other Noble Lords paid their respects to the venerable ex-Premier, who, we are happy to say, looked in exceedingly good health. DUBLIN ELECTION. (THIS DAY.) (Continued from our First Edition.) The vote of James Quigley was objected to by the peti tioners, as coming within the class decided by the resolution of the Committee. Mr. A usTEN denied this, whereupon the Learned Gentle man raised an ingenious argument on the extent to which the doctrine of presumptive evidence could be pushed ; and the Committee having deliberated, came to the following resolu tion :—" That no sufficient evidence has been adduced to con nect James Quigley with the house alleged by Johnston to have been in arrears, and that, therefore, the vote must be al lowed." ......... The Committee then adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110 USE OF COMMONS, APRIL 13. Sir ROBERT PE EL said that he had a very strong opinion, that . another year would pass before a s a ti s f ac t o ry plan was adopted. If the objection urged by the Honour able Member for Middlesex were a valid one, it would equally apply to all plans that could be proposed, for although the House were to abolish the Corn Laws at present, who was to say how long it might be before some protecting duty was again imposed. That was the third proposition, and if the Noble Lord made any great alteration, it would be the fourth which had been before the House. He did not blame any one, for the matter was full of the greatest difficulties. The great fault was that the House had taken up the matter without the preliminary information which was necessary. Though tithes were by law the same all over the countr y , still , by lo ca l cus toms, they were very different in different parts of the country. It would differently apply to several parts of the country in England and Wales, in respect to the matter about which they proposed to legislate. In every other subject on which they legislated successfully, they succeeded by m i nute l oca l inquiry into the matter previously—there was no pre vious inquiry with respect to tithes.—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) H is ( Sir Robert Peel ' s ) plan, in the discussion of which there should be no party feeling, was that while they promoted the voluntar y com p osition, they might be enabled to make enquiries as to the different practices existing. He did not think it ought to be satisfactory to the Government to say that having brought in their measure they had discharged their duty—the object ought to be to effect a satisfactory and a permanent composition. If the plan which he proposed were a followed, the Commissio ners would be appointed, not alone to encourage a voluntary co mmutation, but to collect evidence as to the different usages a nd customs existing on thi s su bject. They would thus combine the voluntary principle with the at tempt to procure that information which, he would say, was indispensable to success. Let the Commissioners to be ap pointed proceed upon the principle of the Bill introduced_ by illation i n diff er ent commutation, and l h e i t m ti l i tt e s m t y a , e t a t r h e fo s r am p e r o t m i m o e ti ng the collect e\l-fielruynitnarfoyr parts cif the country as to the different usages existing. There FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. Capt. BOLDER° begged to ask the Hon. Member for Mal don, whether it was hls intention to persevere in the motion of which he had given notice on the bringing up of the Report on the Mutiny Bill. He (Captain Boldero) had consulted with several military men, who were of opinion, that after the victory that had been achieved last night, and after' the promises that had been held out to them by the Government ; and after the very full discussion the question had undergone last night, it would be injudicious to press the question further ? Mr. LENNARD (as we understood the Hon. Member) said the hopes held out by his Majesty's Government appeared so him unsatisfactory, and he was determined to persevere in his motion. FOREIGN CORN IN BOND. 1 Mr. ROBINSON rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of which lie had given notice. It was his intention to submit a motion relative to the manufacture of foreign corn into flour, for exportation. It was well known that at least six hundred thousand quarters of corn, and also a large quantity of foreign grain, for the last four years in bond, undergoing a daily process of deterioration. It might be eon tanded that this measure would be injurious to the agricul turists ; but he (Mr. R.) denied that such was the ease.— ' ( Hear, hear, hear.) As there might be some opposition ' to his at once giving notice of bringing in a Bill .on the:subj e ct, he would content himself m e arly with moving -the appointment of a select committee. It might be urged that the present question could be better adjusted after the Committee on Agriculture had made its report ; but, he ;(Mr. Robinson) doubted whether a fair report—without meaning anything invidious could emanate from that Committee as regarded the subject of his proposition. He called upon all those Honourable Members who were favourable to the promotion of their mercantile and Commercial interests to sup port his measure. • It would have the effect of making Great Britain a general depotfor the manufacture of all articles of con sumption for their colonies, instead of throwing it into other countries. They were willing to agree to any restrictions that could be placed on them for securing the revenue in the home trade, and therefore he could not see how the Government could oppose his motion, which would bring a most remarkable trade to the country. Let them not ' lose another year, for they had lost much valuable trade last year.—( Hear, hear.) At all events, It was most important ' that the House should decide the question.—( Hear.) He then moved that a Select Committee be appointed to cousiderthe necessary restriction, for allowing foreign corn and flour to b e warehoused for re-exportation. ' Sir E. CODRINGTON had presented petitions on the subject last session. He was quit e su re if the Government y l x v . r o , u ui ld d consider th e question, they would find that no • harm come from the measure, but much good. He had much pleasure in secondin the motion. The question havin g been put by the SPEAKER, Mr. P. THOMSON was sorry that the Honourable Mem ber had not n•ecified more clearly what his motion was. He had unr l 4erstood that it was with reference to fo reign corn in bond, and he had now come forward with a rAotion on the subject of agriculture generally. He shou'id treat this question on fair grounds. He should not appeal to the landed, or shipping, or any other interest ; but he ti"Jought the House would do wisely to consent to the motion. i Til s ere could be no objection in his mind to allow foreign corn I,n bond to be ground in this country, and re-exported. This I could do no injury to the landed interest, or to the revenue: were objections to his Bill, because it did not render the commu tation compulsory ; but he thought before they did so, legisla tion sliculd be preceded by local enquiry, which must take Place in order to ieCtire stlecesi 91. the Act, If a voluntary efill2ligt4thp, s'Aec.cpslpti, *en, there could be no doubt, every one would be ile t9erkg ptlyst'd this con7e, before they, legiglated on' a , bekifd tntl le gi?latQd tbc of the, Poor Laws; they supplied theinsel:;es pf,lPcal information', and if eVer there was A - ulliebt i2211,it.h fetitied coViidn and, iritiry; that question was the subject of ft was Said that this Bill would not come into full operatiPti fdr two years, and that, perhaps, reconciled Hon. Gentlemen to consent to it, whereas they would take a different view of it were It to ttkc effett at the end of this session. They said if the plan did not succeed there certainly would be, plenty of time to reconsider the question, and also to alter the law. What was the language held out to those who entered into voluntary commutations ? That at the end of twp years a certain principle of compulsory commutation should apply.—( Hear, bear, hear.) Suppose they varied this principle they would be bound in justice to set aside all the vo luntary commutations that should have taken place, , in the expectation that it would be adhered t 0...-( Hear,; hear.) Therefore the postponement of the time *mild only aggravate the difficulties. Whether they should Matt Ilid dfrangentent this year or the next was of much less consaliFAide 4 ilian that when they did make arrangements they should gtl3 here to them.—( Hear.) Some time must elapse before the information that he believed to be essential could be acquired ; and in the mean time, by the assistance of a su perintending board, they might acquire all the information that was necessary on which to found a safe principle of com pulsory commutation. In the mean time they would give facili ties for voluntary commutation, and this, with the local inquiries that would be made, would enable the Legislature to be sup plied with that information which should enable them to see what principle was the safest and justest to go upon. Lord J. RUSSELL—It. was necessary that he should no tice what had just fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He did not expect, in stating what was the general substance of the alterations he meant to propose, that the Right Hon. Baronet would have. undertaken to predict the failure of the Bill, and to recommend the measures which should be adopted in consequence of that predicted failure. He did consider it of very great importance that the House and the Parliament should come to a decision upon this subject in the present session. If it required anything to strengthen this conviction, he would find it in the notice given by the Hon. Member for Kent, and supported by the Hon. Member for Sussex, who'declared that he himself would otherwise making the same proposition, namely, to deprive those persons having a right to the tenth of the produce from claiming during the pre sent year, that their tithes should be set out in kind. This notice showed how important it was that Parlia ment should come to a decision on this subject. Last year, after a great deal of information had been collected at various times by Lord Althorp, be (Lord John Russell) stated that as there was much difference in different parts of the country, he thought it advisable that a Select Committee of the Houso should sit, in which Members from different parts of the country should have an opportunity of meeting, and dis cussing, and hearing evidence, from which they would be able to draw a comparison. To this the Right Hon. Baronet ob jected, and stated with a force which he ( Lord John Russell) 'felt unable to resist, that the question ought not to be refetred to a Commitee, but that it was the bounden duty of his Majesty's Government to propose a measure on the subject. The Government had considered what was the best measure to propose on the subject. They had brought forward the pro position which they thought most likely to answer every purpose, and now the Right Hon. Baronet said the best course would be to proceed upon the old system for another year. He (Lord J. R.) must say that he was not prepared to adopt that course, and however unsatisfactory it might be (he hoped it would be satisfactory), he should propose to the House those propositions which he had had the honor of bring ing forward : he should consider the Bill as the measure which which the Government had pledged themselves to bring forward. If the House rejected the Bill, he could not say whether they were in the right or in the wrong in their decision ; but certainly the result would be that the Government had endeavoured to settle the question of Tithes, but the House would not approve of the measures which they adopted. After some observations from Mr. R. COLBOURNE the Bill was committed pro forma ; and on the Report being brought up, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he had proposed the altera tions he had done, upon the understanding that the House did not sanction the Bill of the Noble Lord altogether. He did not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the Bill of the Noble Lord, if it met with the sanction of the House. FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. Lord HONVICKmoved the Order of the Day in going into Committee on the Mutiny Bill. On the question being put that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Major FANCOURT rose to move," That it is the opinion of this House, the punishment of flogging should be entirely abolished in the British army." He had intended to have made this motion at an earlier period, and had been subjected to much misrepresentation for not doing so ; but in conse quence of a Commission being appointed, he thought it better to wait until after the Commissioners had made their report. If the Noble Lord and his Colleagues saw reason to withhold their consent from his proposition, he deeply regretted it. He had, however, a duty to perform, and must persevere in his motion.--( Hear.) The precise question was, whether a man who was; irreclaimable by solitary confinement, could be reclaimed by any other means.—( Hear, hear.) In such cases he felt convinced that expulsion was the only effectual mode. With respect to the necessity of maintaining a system of military punishment, that he contended could form no ground for continuing corporal punishment. —( Hear.) If its abolition was attended with any disadvantages, it would be in the power of Parliament to provide a remedy. In no case was flog ging more objectionable than while the men were employed on active service. The system had been abolished in the Indian army, and could it be said that there was any thing in the cha racter of their countrymen to render them unworthy such a boon ? The punishment was a moral injury to the soldier, and was perfectly inadequate to the end proposed by it. It was a ques tion upon which the public mind was made up, and he trusted that that night's debate would put an end to a system which, under any circumstances, could not long continue. He moved " That the punishment of flogging be entirely abo lished in the army." Captain BOLDER° rose to second the motion. He said that every consideration of humanity, as well as of justice, combined to call for the abolition of corporal punishments. The state of society and the feeling of the enlightened portion of society was in favour of the abolition of military punishment. Before the battle of Waterloo the soldier was entitled to receive 900 lashes, and our military code was so severe that many men were anxious for their discharge rather than continue under it. At present Courts-martial preferred sentencing offenders to solitary confinement, which was found more useful than corporal punishments in repressing insubordination. The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman then proceeded to quote pas ' sages from the Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the system of military punishments in the army. The entire number of stripes awarded in the national army was 293,615. What was the number of stripes for each regiment in Bombay ? 7,657 for the last five years.—( Hear, hear.) He appeled to every man who heard him, not upon the ground whether cor poral punishment ought to continue, for the feelings of all were favourable to its abolition, because he believed every one who heard him was sincerely and honestly desirous of a total abolition of the punishment ; but if there was any man who was afraid of the consequences, he pointed to the evidence of officers to show that it was not necessary : and he appealed to Hon. Members in whose minds any doubt existed as to the propriety of abolition, to give the benefit of that doubt to the side of mercy and humanity.—( Cheers. ) Mr. C UTL A R FE RG US SON said the question for them to consider was this—whether they were prepared now and for ever to abolish from the military code the punishment of flogging.—(Hear, hear.) That was the question, and not what their feelings might prompt them to do.—( Hear, hear.) Though the Hon. and Gallant Member had told them that he had abstained last session from taking the opinion of the House upon this question, yet he had not said one word of the effect of the report of the Commissioners. This, too, hap pened, notwithstanding the Honourable and Gallant Member who seconded the motion read so much of the evidence, and by the great body of that evidence all doubts must be re moved with respect to the main question whether they were to part with the power (not the exercise of the power) of inflicting corporal punishments in extreme cases.—( Hear. ) No person opposed the abolition of corporal punishment, as far as it was practicable—no one contended that it ought to be inflicted in every case—that was the law as it now stood ; but the law was marching with due strides towards, not the total, but the almost total abolition of flogging.—( Hear, bear.) Were they now then to preclude that species of punishment ? Were they to take away the power of inflicting it, when the exercise of that power had been almost totally discontinued ? ( Hear.) He did not think that the House could possibly do more than had been done towards the restriction of the punish ment, and this could be shown from a return laid upon the table of the House. By this return, it appeared that eight years ago corporal punishments exceeded the number of punish ments of every other description, while in the year past the corporal punishments, as compared with others, were only as one to nine. —(Hear, and cheers.) Could then anything be more injurious, at a time when they were looking to a favour able issue of what was done by the Government, than that an attempt should be made to abolish the punishment altogether? to strike at the very root of discipline in the army, and to leave them no protection, no means of repelling foreign aggression, o r avenging the honour of this country.—( Hear.) He must state to the House what had been done upon this subject, be cause he agreed with Hon. Members that if it were possible to abolish corporal punishment it would be a great object, and one that must be gratifying to the feelings of all parties. The punishment of flogging, he was happy to say, he had never seen; but it must naturally excite feelings of the most unpleasaht nature to those compelled to witness it : and all punishments were melancholy.—( Hear, hear.) If the punish ment of flogging were cruel and severe, how much more cruel and severe was that by which the criminal was deprived of life ? The punishment was inflicted as an example, and if the cruelty of a punishment was to be a ground for its discon tinuance, he sa w no reason why they should not abolish all capital punishments.—( Hear, hear.) If they were to act thus, then capital punishments, the ignominious death of the felon on the gallows, should be at an end —no matter how horrible, detestable, and abhorrent to their nature his crime might be. Now there were crimes perpetrated, such as mur der, and others, 'find his mind revolted from the idea that the life of him who was guilty of them should not be forfeited.— ( Hear, hear.) Were they then to say, that every punishment that was cruel and ignominious ought to be abolished ? The object in inflicting this punishment was by the example made V . 4. • to deter otter f!'cro' C9F:na)itting similar offences. Death was not inflicted upciti flP. , :i!idi'lticfual;fot' the mere purpose of its being painful to the individual t4f4. , ' there was a higher object—it was that of its b e 1 44 eiiitple to others. This was the main object ; and the question noit' 'l4: the power of inflicting corporal punishments as an example Aotld be retained? He would venture to say, 'that notwith_ sialklitrg the evidence that had been read upon the subject, he should be able to show that every officer of standing in the serfree, and of great merits had said that it was impossible to abofish the punishment of flogging without shaking to its very tottridation the . "discipline of the army.—( Hear, hear.) He had hotel , state' tiOt* what had been done to put an end, so far as it was possible id the'punishment ; and to restrict it within the narrowest bounds praeticable, According to a return made, it will be found that from 10211 to 1827, during those three years corporal punishments exceeded the number of all other kinds or punishment whatever. This was the case in the years 1825, 1826, and 1827. In 1827, that is, eight years ago, the corporal punishments were 105 ; the sen tences of other kinds were 246. In the year that has just elapsed (1835) such has been the effect of the authority exer cised by the Government in substituting other punishments, such as solitary confinement and bard labour, that the corporal punishments were 477.; other punishments 4,729. Now, from 1830 to 1835 the total number of corporal punishments was 1,440 ; other punishments 9,591 ;—the total number being 11 3 031, • Mr, HUME—That return is for Great Britain only. CUTLAR FERGUSSON—The Hon. Gentleman must know the facts better than they were known at the Ad jutant-Generai'i office, r . when he undertook to contradict him. This was " A return oi number of soldiers who, sinus the year 1830, have suffered either corporal punishMent or impri sonment." Mr. HUME—Read under it. Mr. C. FE RGUS SON—This was a mare's 11621 of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, and be never knew that i-;!on. Member to discover any other.—( Hear, and laughter.) It necessarily followed that the return for 1835 should be incom plete, as there c(:uld not be returns from the regiments in the East Indies, and at the Cape of Good Hope ; but this remark could not apply to the returns for the year 1834, and this was all that the discovery of the Hon. MeMber for Middlesex amounted to, It was due to the military, authorities to state this fact, which wottld be found by the ettidtnee of Lord Hill, that so early as 1812 . they Winced the number of lashes which it was in the power of a regimental court-martial to inflict. Before that they were not limited as to the extent of corptai punishments. Any number of lashes could be inflicted, and it was only in 1812 that they were confined to 300. After wards a genei al regimental courtmartial had the power of in flicting 500 lashes ; but a garrison courtmartial was confined to 300 stripes, and a regimental courtmartial to 500. He had now to mention to the House that it was intended to limit still further those powers. He thought that this was a very wise measure ; but upon former occasions, when the power existed of inflicting five, six, seven, and eight hundred lashes , this was an oppression as great as could be conceived. Such on enormous power ought not to be left in the hands of any persons ; but the question was not alien before the House whether corporal punishments ought to be moderated—not whether they ought to be reduced to a proper number as they were now—the power being confined to one class of courts-.nartial of inflicting 200 lashes, and to another of 100— the question was not whether they had done all that they pos sible could do to alleviate the evil, but whether they were to abolish the punishment altogether, and thus interfere with military discipline. Ho believed, if they asked the British sol dier—would he exchange his situation to take service under any other power in Europe ?—he was perfectly satisfied with Sir George Murray, that the British soldier would, with all its inconveniences, prefer serving in the English army, to that of any power on earth. The Hon. Member who had seconded the motion, had referred to the opinion of Sir Willoughby Gordon respecting the French army, and as to its being per fectly well conducted. This had nothing to do with corporal punishments. That gallant officer was asked as to that of which he had official knowledge, the description of the French army ; but not as to corporal punishments.—( Hear.) He must, with the permission of the House, as the Hon. and Gallant Member had referred to the evidence, take the liberty of making a few remarks upon the question, as to whether corporal punishments ought entirely to be done away with. Now he found only two amongst seventy-one to declare them selves favourable to their entire abolition. There was the evidence of sixty-four in writing who answered this question. There were but two Honourable and Gallant Gentlemen op posed to them ; these were the :Members for Barnstaple and Hull. Out of the entire number of officers, there were but two, who stated that there ought to be the abolition of corpo ral punishments in all cases.—( Hear, hear.) And let the House recollect, that if this motion went to the full extent that no crime was to be visited with corporal punishment—no crime, no matter how disgraceful, theft itself, if they passed the resolution, could not be so punished. And yet they were to find the discipline of the army maintained, though they could not punish the most disgraceful offence 1 How could they maintain that discipline in England, if they could not punish theft by whipping, because the offender was in the army, when, under the provisions of the Act of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, the punishment of whipping was still continued for not less than seventy or eighty dif ferent offences ?—( Hear, hear.) What was to be done, then, with the soldier? A return was noticed by the Hon. and Gallant Member for Launceston—that was a return moved for by Mr. Hunt in 1832—and by that return it ap peared that upwards of two thousand persons had been flogged by the order of the magistrates. This was done by the ordi nary tribunals of the land, and there was not one word of their case ; but no one could well come forward and do so. It was not a topic so likely to be popular as that of corporal punish ments in the army. He had a list of the different offences for which the punishment of whipping could be inflicted, and with which he should not trouble the House, but they included fe lonies as well as misdemeanours. They did not say that flogging was to be struck out of the criminal code, it was every day exercised, but they heard nothing of it, and he had stated his opinion why they did not.—( Hear, hear.) One par ticular point had been relied upon by the Hon. Member who seconded the motion, and that was as to there being no cor poral punishments in the French army. Why was that ? By a decree of the National Assembly corporal punishments were abolished. It was not so in England ; corporal punishments were inflicted by their criminal code. Were they, then, to render courts-martial incompetent to punish by whipping offences that were deemed disgraceful at least ? If they passed the resolution thus proposed, it would be incompetent for a court-martial to do that, but they still might take the soldier out of the barrack, where he could not be flogged, and send him to gaol, where he might be flogged. Let them send the soldier to the house of correctien—let there send him to the gaol at Maidstone, and then the soldier, exempt from the lash, must, if in the house of correction and under the law of the land, undergo what was the discipline of a house of correction. —( Hear, hear.) They had been told by Mr. Thomas Eager, the Governor of the gaol of Maidstone, that upon occasion the soldiers were very riotous, and he sent for the visit ing magistrates—" the ringleaders were discovered and flogged, two of them severely, by order of the magistrates.' They were, he said, much more severely flogged than the punishment amongst soldiers. He was asked what was the effect of it, and his reply was—" It had a very great effect. Those soldiers have been extremely well-behaved ever since. They acknowledged that they deserved it, and that they were extremely sorry for it."—(Hear, and laughter.) They had the testimony of about 120 or 130 officers of long experience, all stating to the same effect;, none of those officers said that they could do without having the power of the lash. But he must remark upon what had been stated by the lion. and Gal lant Member for Hull, for he thought that Hon. and Gallant Member had given a most unfortunate instance of the possi bility of dispensing with it. The lion. and Gallant Member for Hull had certainly very great merit, and for which lie did not seem to claim any praise, for he had the merit of giving the most valuable testimony in support of the necessity of corporal punishments. Colonel THOMPSON read the evidence. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON He had the evidence as it had been taken down, but since the Hon. and Gallant Mem ber wished him to read it he would do so. In page 234 the Hon. and Gallant Member told that of himself of which they had heard more than once or twice, that he had a great objec tion to corporal punishments. The second instance which the Hon. and Gallant Officer gave to show that corporal punish ments could not be inflicted on service was this— " I recollect, in the 14th Dragoons, having occasion to make a complaint against soldiers who had committed what I con sider a military crime. I was ordered, in the Peninsular war, with I think about eight dragoons and sixteen Spanish infantry, believe it was in the neighbourhood of St. Severs, to ascer tain whethera division of French cavalry was at a certain point six or seven miles 'off. I contrived to arrive there near night fall, and ascertained that they had been gone about four hours. As I returned, the Spaniards got very frightened, and begged the dragoons would not leave them. I ordered different indi viduals of the dragoons to move in advance of the detachment, my fear being that we might fall in with a body of the enemy ; and if we had timely notice of it we might retire by some cross road, or in case of extremity disperse. As fast as I sent a dragoon out of sight, he trotted off and made the best of his way to camp. Not one man staid with me but the corporal. The Spaniards, the corporal, and I arrived safely in the English out-posts. I immediately complained to the colonel, who did not punish the men, and all he did was to apply a strong expres sion to them, but the men were never punished. That struck me as a proof of the inapplicability of corporal punishment be fore the enemy ; for I feel certain that if those men had com mitted anything like a similar irregularity in a barrack-yard in England, they would have been very severely punished." In that case the commanding officer differed in opinion from the Hon. and Gallant Member. But they now came to the other case, and he should read the very words of it : " I can give two instances bearing upon the fact. I will first give one which occurred in the 95th, or Rifle regiment, where corporal punishment was not carried to its usual extent in consequence of that feeling. The day before we landed on the unfortunate expedition to Buenos Ayres, being the officer on watch, I heard a private say, ' The officers had better take care of themselves, for we shall have them in our front to morrow.' I knew what that meant ; that if an officer did any thing in the way of discipline which the men did not like, lie should be shot. I brought the man up for punishment, and the man was tried. At that time corporal punishment was almost the only punishment in vogue exce p t for ver y sli g ht crimes. Th e court martial found him guilty, and inflicted upon him, if I recollect right, 150 lashes; which, although it may be a severe punishment in itself, was a very slight punish ment in reference to the scale of punishment then existing in the ar my. For a man would have received 150 lashes on any complaint of a captain ; for instance, of his being once or twice drunk, or being habitually dirty. I had been told in quarters in England, when trying to bring d c o o vi u • r n t. a ma n r i t a i n a is pun , e m rv e i n c t e a . l ' Therefore it yo is u hm in c u n s t t n t o o t n so a k e las a h j e o s ke nt of a threegsi __________- scetrsiticEtiiigss—tarootnygnlyo,;------ttliliact sla:otfl—mp—tutlischainti_theareralatiasrt:tif loiliri:el eystein it was avowed practically to tbe so.diers t . 2 He did. " Did he receive his corporal punishment . I 1 card no peerre s vi r o v u o s u i l y d i n n o u t, se o . r could not, maintain the scale of punishment "NO that put an end to that sort of feelieg?--- , l _ e wa , a the aa4c ttul : s e ine / t. l „ii_ ° : : more o f it. But the soldiers must have seen that inuenrishoint great difference in the application of the scale of " Did you happen to sit on that Court-martial?_l aPP t q l u i a i r i te f r r s o . m what it would have been if they staid beleciiitenind not. I was, in tact, the accuser', the prosecutor. loefr"itpssoldiers a ll on cannot service, or from some opinion that the man deserved a.lpeu,'_,". meta of that amount only ? I c pw a ua n ns n i thanon not t o h l e i b e t oi l c i n i eg n a k sai t od h lvi a i t sjaubslteifi punishmentetdo, . al2 ink; of the officers of the court-martial. My fe eling " I ,' denel the act of the soldier was an act of gross weeny or timete in to mutiny. I believe I may say it is almost the only I uniswhich, I have brought forward a soldier for corp Or a. el y, went, but in this instance I did bring him forward while OR being the - officer on the watch, and having beard it " awarded WT I i d i f a irc t orm : ment was in consequence of the sense the officers bin! t ' duty. My impression was, that the smallness of thewytoti:lstlll:e inapplicability of corporal punishment at a time like tha ~ on You are not aware of having heard that repeated?----i not. I certainly heard no more of that kind." of tai Now, in this case what mattered the slightness punishment, if it effected the purpose ?—( Hear.) case, too, it appeared that the corporal punishments n i p t ; o _ end to the party feeling that prevailed. And now, hoiivrale_r; instances were evidence to prove that corporal punis 1 . . 11 ,L e failed in the army, he, to the last day of his life, shoaudiutio" unable to conjecture.—( Hear, and laughter.) He h H o, read the evidence of the Hon. and Gallant Member for the, and he thought it quite conclusive the other way; but i o t nne.. were to handcuff soldiers, and order them to solitary eofn of ment, while on service, what, he would ask, was to bee in an other the corps? He should now race to the evidence of .ha d military officer, Lieut. Blood, a person of great m erit, wn? d thiS risen from the ranks; and upon flogging he was sit e In !II:at question :—yourself " When you enlisted, were you sensible liable to this punishment if you misconducted yourself ' Most unquestionably I was. , that Bream " Was any impression made on your 'mind by coed("aet stance when you enlisted ?—No ; I knew I should ins it, myself properly ; I never felt the necessity of considertinver, as far as my own feelings were in question. I' r e ,„. in under any circumstances, for one moment a prow l '" guard-house, or elsewhere." • a cor yeti made _ This he thought was perfectly conclusive for retainulz, _Le, poral punishments. It was the opinion of this officer that were more necessary in the field, for he says—" It aPr e triet ieg have had a very desirable effect ; if the power of 1° j a w/ this corporal punishment was not in force, it is mild6lln I coo that it would be attended with the most serious fantnarni, sequences, and particularly so in the field before t l , l° ,, e , tre ying " You think it would have had the effect 0 1 „ T " e ' i do, the energy of that regiment upon that occasion 7- - ' e b s a ' r acter s considering what was the description of some of ti* c n owt' we had to do with then ; and if it was not instantly' P,_' ol a nd in the summary way he was, it would have induced P i . la others to set all their officers and all authority at tle 6 a t t n ‘ c e pt 1 ° this month I also witnessed another drum-head punis"eifles, the division, on the line of march, on three of the 9.5tu ~t , ,. allY by order of Major-General Robert Crawford. Wh ile % . iati° ° marching these men fell out for water, which was 111 f - ii o tecl of his orders. He had two or three dozen lashes 'Toshio, This had the desired effect also. No sold ier of that "'witted for more than two years I was marching with it after with for a breach of that order. Now surely men are not hi s od th e such crimes as these, when a few lashes are etrect ° ';ither P,,,,ta men preserved; and yet, under such circumstancPs'e-ee call,'" nishment must be put in force. There is no other t , e f e te w e established for immediate example on the march, o f P enemy." -.oral Now, what is the opinion of General Evans--that c'clutoo, punishment cannot be done without in the field. 1.11 1 , 1 ;1 the was said by General Evans, who, it was well known9.-ereelit' strongest objection to the infliction of such a n° llls ,: re cl l4° There coula be no doubt that coy oral punishments vi",,'d thas liked by the officers of the army. P Was it to be suPP°es-elings the gallant men who were examined were lost to the blood of humanity ? that they wok a pleasure in shedding th e 00 of their follow-creatures ? Nothing was, or could the 00 0 abhorrent to their feelings than such punishments, sefit.atioll• could have a greater dislike than they had to thei r in n - eotieg He could not describe their feelings better than h„,Y,:I Ocou r tmheemwboerrdtshoefn read Sir t H h e e nr f y ollo V w a i n n e g euxptornactthifsropinointth.o 0 . '1: 4 ° 0 ,0 t il Sir H. Vane : ege e ' ~ You have been questioned with respect W th .. , 6 ro of the alteration of the punishment in the army', f_tl)reae coat of poral punishment to solitary confinement, in gam, 'at:" home. Do you conceive that an alteration of th at t Oil could be effected when the army is in the field, ari d th be a t o, discipline of the army could be kept up? It Mu st ho 10 terly impracticable. I think my brother officers , W.„, Os! members of this commission, will all agree with 0 1 e l i t hst . 1 , statement. I will put a case as an example. It than battle ol was ordered to conduct from Toulouse, after the % , 5 11 , someaTr o m u y l o. artillery, useto marched aoarunclhdoegdtnhee themand ma t t e o irnie Calais, itwoof tc whole ho t el h u e DinunksDuke t°fil o r o f ; t o. h ch e c ii ? .r set oor ti c ; and emarked them at Boulogne and Calais. By tn e y, -w a , 0- maintaining discipline which I had in m • hands, I -are' abled so to conduct them as to receive so much of t he i; lie bation of the French Government as to be offered as ° -ejell''' tion the order of the legion of honour. I will as k any 'tilos° ber of the commission how I could have conducte,% o o ot ; two columns, had the power of inflicting corporal pel°s-eer °' if necessary, been taken out of my hands , and the po solitary confinement only substituted in lieu of it? ; •on. "In point of fact you could not?---That is nil °P,„e l unis °- " Supposing solitary confinement had been the ° ° Vur 1 1 ment allowed, how would you have proceeded, 11 1 1 . °a1 ,:tiOn ?--- of marsh through France, to put that into Ov — ~ shouldh eve found it to be utterly impracable." „ ice of t" - Nothing could possibly be clearer than the .1, 11 , 5 ;,. Otli e6' i, 5 observation. He would now quote the same G°• t opinion upon another point. ra t° goo " When you commanded a regiment, did it err e he sol dier ( that the infliction of corporal punishment ur n t— des of always carried with it considerable degradation 1 0 t ile d es) . ° his brother soldiers ?—I will say of myself, as I• •sh ent e ' is i almost every one of my brother officers, that the task se'ao flitting corporal punishment was always so painful to ° ',ha t our feelings towards our soldiers were so different from feel' persons seem to suppose—indeed so much more; ike w aio le ings of a father towards his children (at least t wa s ivas the i my own)—that the infliction of corporal punishment.t w he° most painful duty we ever performed. I never did 1 the , a lia c o o f u e ld xa p n e ip ss l i e b . ly a l v d o i i d d iitt.witlVhtehnatlddeigdreite, ofl dscidveritit)f,°:',,,beinecenciii;l calculated to make an impression. The degradation " r a upon the nature of the crime." . ee nee ' d The same sentiments pervaded the whole of the ev:,:d re' the volume before the House. If Hon. Gentlemen -. be th at that volume, they would see the universal feeling te'f.,,i„,,thsbt the punishment of flogging was in itself not disgrac:crerbstt,ea it was the nature of the offence for which it was lei bc .; in ° e t ; as thieving or swindling, which cast disgrace un° ll I ,: e ald "". seen also from the same evidence that the eyes of both officeis tuid men.—( Hear, hear.) it , a. of till punishment was in itself no impediment to future Pr u e of a —(Hear, hear.) He would now refer to the e vide ° he be; Gallant Relativeir,flictio°ootioe• 110, e oe of his (Colonel Ferreusson), ` l ,,,iidest ',,,t lieved he might say, was a gentleman of the very l e•i ati it--- t ° llo most humane disposition, approaching almost to , t ha ~.., at the same time he could add for that Gallant ()fle s dutY. I was a soldier, and as a soldier he had always done 111 1 ,,d h ° , ° ,,i ` ( Hear, hear.) Colonel Fergusson stated that that'e._ l t he b'," . , nine or ten cases of corporal punishment inflicte Tnsehor"e'r Regiment within the last three years for violence,. one i nation, and conduct of a disgraceful !more, includclg o f t two instances for theft. He would beg the attelltianocee House 'inri evidence : to the following passage in this Gallant t an d a or° l " Recourse is now had to solitary confinemen ~ e ar sonment, with or without hard labour, in punishment, i.n many cases?—Yes, in many cases. t has b 1.., " Do you find that the discipline of your reeinents f o r c ° , o deteriorated by the substitution of those punisloenhaire beta poral punishment ?—Certainly. More offenc es the committed since the restriction has been m ade. s riet ing ~ re "Do you find that the late regulations, re t w ee be e t, power of the commanding officers more than theY, ba d ere have had a good or a bad effect on the discipline' ----' r r , nis i " decidedly. r porai r al er ring You think the example more striking of c ° , i a det ment than of imprisonment, and more effectual ot others from • lieu 01 co f he P ea I , • th ° " The effect is greater in consequence 0- t o oge in being inflicted immediately, and the whole gone thr e ffene presence of all the men ?—Yes, exactly. , vi , t he o a " Where, for reasons, punishment cannot foh° ,• 3 1, Cl O ) in immediately, but must wait for trial by court-rearkl it eas tna t think imprisonment with hard labour, esP c° , ; slY tIY ear d e o°t a place in the sight of the men, would be sti."lnreallY don for the object of maintaining discipline ?---- I ' 4°l who liac e 0 0 think it would, for we have instances of leen '''' t hey e , ia ys two or three months in imprisonment, and wrhell.l, f o ur ` out, they will commit the same offence in three 0 ri l 1! °- again. . ve d c oil t o "Do you not find that men who have two hat e re , et , nishment have done the same ?—No, we have es the e 1" ~,, stances,; and I find that the rarity of it increa s , ve d corl' .o , l I have had several instances of men who have rec,,' sir , if Y ,01 ., will forget what is past, will feud me ral punishment, come to me afterwards and saY , can ree' °d to f u tur„e t h as ~, dier ;" and in almost every instance gi ant ' Ic ci e 7ol )‘° b t e il e i; proved, and I am confident we have many ins ° we have f r e et soldiers whose conduct has been so violent thatA obliged to resort to ' h nt an • nen from - corporal punts me , _eed trans has ' • invariably been good, and often pas sa i v .nu id he committing • serious offences, for which they ' ~ elf that ion C irI P you le ... it is w og' l o st e • 0 10 ported.--( Hear, hear ) "Do you think that . young man • fer to h °s • the c ll . in the opinion of his comrades ?—Not the least that injures them in the eyes of each other, not ort s °I tion of punishment."—( Hear, hear.) , Sir Octavius Carey gave it as his opini°, l punishments, no matter of what nature, wl ' D i t , c _ ..d la bo f clo th of floggi ng , or solitary confinements witl„:10" e t that (.1 c , cr ave were ineffectual in the way of example, eo', his a ide i c e ;on? alone. This gallant officer, in the course ‘1,1.." C. F e ib ror a! r tl o i f a teesitirasod..,ri 1 1, 1 i it as his opinion—and in that o pinion he ( L' A V ', ion of c° ll, r a tel entirely concurred—that " the constant fl llortl'er' rendered them indifferent to punishment.' , in eettcr rod that "he thought the army would be kept , _ feie ptlY , punishment exercised a brutalising effect ,junpi!enie t s h t, c ite d de. by minor punishments, executed certainly and e !.. ~.